Last Wednesday's decision by the International Court of Justice, the World Court, ordering the stay of the executions of several Mexican inmates in Texas, pending review and reconsideration of their convictions, was the right thing to do. Before Gov. Rick Perry rejects this decision out of hand, he would do well to consider how defiance of the World Court ruling will affect the safety of Americans abroad who rely on the same treaty protections that Texas violated in these cases. Gov. Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles should concur with the World Court and order a reprieve of the executions until those convictions are reviewed and reconsidered.

In 2005, President Bush ordered state courts to review and reconsider the capital convictions of Mexican citizens who were listed in the World Court judgment and who were arrested and convicted without being told that they had the right to contact any of dozens of Mexican consulates throughout the country. This order was in response to a World Court decision which said that the United States was not in compliance with a treaty that the U.S. government signed saying that, among other things, U.S. law enforcement would see to it that arrests of foreigners will be reported to their nations' consulates in an appropriate time.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was a treaty that the United States entered into purposely, willingly and enthusiastically. Why? Because American citizens need to have access to American consular officials if they are ever arrested in a foreign country.

American officials can provide a number of services for Americans in trouble to assure proper and fair treatment. And on countless occasions, U.S. consular officials have interceded with foreign authorities to protect the rights of wrongly detained Americans. But in order to secure this access for Americans traveling abroad, the United States had to ensure that it would provide access for foreigners in the United States. This is what it did in signing and ratifying the treaty.

Our good faith goes a long way in securing the good faith of other nations. This is not a capitulation of sovereignty, as has been suggested by agenda-pushing commentators. Indeed, it is the ultimate exercise of sovereignty for the United States to accept treaty obligations which will benefit Americans abroad.

Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national, took his conviction and sentence of execution to the United States Supreme Court to get that body to enforce the World Court decision so that he could get a review and reconsideration of his 1994 conviction for one of the most shocking and despicable murders in recent Houston history.

Far from a sympathetic figure, Medellin was convicted for the rape and murder of Elizabeth Pena, a young teenage girl whose friend Jennifer Ertman was killed by Medellin's friends. He was convicted of doing so, and bragging about it later, after a night of drinking during a gang initiation ceremony, according to news reports in 1993. Very little exculpatory evidence has been found, and few people believe that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice — except for the fact that police officers did not give Medellin the opportunity to be in contact with his consulate and notify it of his arrest, a requirement under the treaty.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision and an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the argument that the World Court's decision should be automatically enforced in the United States judicial system. That view was based upon a series of analytical legal arguments surrounding the role of the president to issue such an order, and whether or not a treaty binding the United States to adhere to the World Court's ruling is enforceable in the absence of congressional legislation.

All nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the United States does have an obligation under the treaty to provide access to national consulates for foreigners arrested here, even though members disagreed as to whether rights created by the treaty were enforceable in U.S. courts.

Lawyers representing Texas in the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush administration that the United States does have an international obligation to comply with the World Court's opinion; they just disagreed as to how that obligation should be enforced. No credible legal commentators dispute the basic holding of the World Court that rights were created and that the United States, by the failure of local law enforcement to provide access to national consulates, was in violation of the treaty. By his order, the president sought to shore up our credibility on the matter.

Under the Constitution, Congress and the president decide the foreign policy of the United States; and in this case, the president decided that the United States would comply with the World Court's judgment.

There is no doubt in this case that President Bush took into account the need to show good faith toward foreign nationals to protect the interests of American nationals, even if it meant granting a convicted murderer like Medellin a review and reconsideration of his conviction.

And such a review would simply determine whether Medellin and other Mexican nationals on death row got what they would have gotten in terms of access to justice had police officers followed the treaty.

Would such a process result in overturning the verdict? Possibly so, just like any other reversal of a capital conviction by a higher court calling for a review and reconsideration in our domestic court system. But then again, an exoneration of Medellin and the others mentioned in the World Court's judgment is not likely, as the Texas state courts would conduct the review of the earlier conviction as severely as this state's judicial branch's reputation would require. Chances are that neither Medellin nor others will escape the death penalty.

Texas has an opportunity now to set all of this right without sacrificing its view of the role of international court judgments in its courts and the courts of other states as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Perry can order a temporary reprieve of execution while the Texas Legislature produces legislation allowing review and reconsideration of the convictions. Such legislation is already before the U.S. Congress. In our great democracy, passing such laws cannot be done without full debate and consideration. Given the issues at stake for all Americans, it is only right that Congress and the Texas Legislature be given the opportunity to ensure our nation lives up to the promises it made to its treaty partners.

By granting a reprieve, Gov. Perry and the Board of Pardons will enhance the reputation of Texas and the United States throughout the world.

That may not mean much to some, but to the American missionary, teacher or tourist in Central Asia, in East Asia, Africa or the Middle East or elsewhere, it just might mean a lot.

Ellis, a Democrat, represents Texas Senate District 13 in Houston. Jackson is a professor of law at the Texas Southern University's Thurgood Marshall School of Law and co-director of the school's Institute for International and Immigration Law.